jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (16 posts)

Vote YES to pass Arizona Senate Bill 1500 and Arizona House Bill 2456

  1. ptosis profile image77
    ptosisposted 3 months ago

    Arizona Senate Bill 1500 and Arizona House Bill 2456 require a candidate for the office of president of the United States to submit a copy of the their federal and state income tax returns for the immediately preceding five years.

    "Vote YES on Arizona Senate Bill 1500 and Arizona House Bill 2456, so that starting in 2020, all presidential candidates must release their latest income tax returns, regardless of audit, to be allowed on Arizona's ballot."

    Will you sign this petition? Click here:

    http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/presid … by=9215329

    Thanks!

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Déjà vu, 2011, all over again!

      Presidential candidates must be natural-born U.S. citizens, be at least 35 years old, and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. These are the only qualifications needed to be President of the United States! Arizona, once again, is trying to add additional requirements without following the amendment procedure stipulated in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

      If the bills are enacted, Ptosis, they are not likely to survive judicial muster.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  2. stephenteacher profile image84
    stephenteacherposted 3 months ago

    Makes no sense. It's just a tradition. And a recent tradition. Trump is blowing up Wash DC, and people who voted for him like that. We are tired of protocol. What has a released tax return one for us? Um...like that made GW Bush a saint? Why stop at tax returns. How about forcing them to disclose religious affiliation, parking tickets, divorces, alimony, home price, friend list on FB, high school grades,....I remember back when Bubba Clinton was prez....liberals kept saying nothing matters...."It's the economy, stupid." What Bill did in the oval office was despicable.....and nobody gave a whimper.

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Do you want a President to pass tax laws that puts millions of dollars in his own pocket?

      Trump wants to get rid of the AMT. He also wants to lower the tax rate. He would make an enormous amount of money if he gets his tax reform passed.

      Releasing his tax returns would prove exactly how much.

  3. Reason and Facts profile image82
    Reason and Factsposted 3 months ago

    1.  It started with Nixon in 1973. Not exactly a recent tradition.
    2.  He's not blowing up Washington, his administration is full of Washington insiders.
    3.  The purpose of releasing a tax return is to demonstrate the candidate has nothing to hide from the public and is free from conflicts on interest.  Both of which are very good things.
    4.  Liberals never said "nothing matters".  The "It's the economy stupid" was in 1992, during the Presidential election against Bush.  It was only a campaign issue.
    5.  Everything else you wrote is is just neocon drivel, crying about stories decades old that have no relevance
    6.  Why do neocons have so much difficulty with facts?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      3.  Don't we get enough empty "demonstrating" and posturing from our politicians already?  More of the same does nothing for anyone.

      How does a tax return show that all actions are free from conflicts on interest?  Particularly if the President has put their business interests in a blind trust?

      No, I think it is just curiosity, often coupled with a desire to find something to hurt the candidate politically.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I suggest that you learn a lot more about taxes before making such claims.

        His tax returns would show how much money he would pocket by getting rid of the AMT among his other pet demands, not to mention dramatically lowering the tax rate at the top level.

        And his business interests are not in a blind trust. That's one of the many lawsuits he is facing.

        http://www.citizensforethics.org/press- … moluments/

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          And what does what he would gain by lowering the AMT on thousands of people have to do with anything?  Will you now claim that anything that he profits from (which is nearly everything) is bad for the country and thereby a conflict of interest?

          Unfortunately for the hysterical crowd, he is not required to put his assets in a blind trust.  Not that it would do any good anyway...the entire thrust is to hurt the President financially in the hopes he will resign.

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      6. Denying facts is a behavior from extremists at either end of the political spectrum. They are fixated more on ideology than reality.

  4. peoplepower73 profile image85
    peoplepower73posted 3 months ago

    Read this, hot off the press this morning for your dining and dancing pleasure.  Wilderness:  I know it's long and I know how you hate to read long stuff, but just read the first half.  Maybe I have you mixed up with GA Anderson.  If I do, my apologies to you.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar … ts/508382/

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      About half way down is where I stopped: the article makes it very, very clear that the goal is to force Trump to sell all of his assets, paying truly massive taxes in the process, in the hopes he will refuse and go to jail.  Or at least resign the post the people of America voted to have him occupy.

      Unfortunately, the article then proceeded to claim there are "many conflicts of interest that began almost as soon as he won the presidency" but sadly without giving a single example.  Just another empty claim, so common from the Trump haters out there today.

      That was far enough as far as I'm concerned.  Was it for you as well, or do you support this kind of dirty, "back door" politics that we see so much of today?

    2. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Hello peoplepower73, I am glad my name came to mind, but I don't have a problem with long articles, or deep-link research.

      To the contrary, many here would probably attest that my comments are as difficultly long as my readings behind them.

      GA

  5. asajanarif profile image61
    asajanarifposted 3 months ago

    And what does what he would recieve by chieve the auto matted tailor on thousands of people have to do with anything?  do you now claim that anything that he profits from (which is closely everything) is bad for the country and thereby

  6. peoplepower73 profile image85
    peoplepower73posted 3 months ago

    Wilderness:  Here is the list to all the examples of conflict of interest in the 2nd part of the article.  If you go back to the article and click on the links, it will give you the specifics.  It's far too much to copy and paste here.

    Below is an attempt to catalogue the more clear-cut examples of conflicts of interest that have emerged so far. The most recent entries appear at the top:

    That Second Hotel in Washington, D.C.
    That Property in Azerbaijan
    That Trump Tower Penthouse
    That Resort in the Dominican Republic
    That Chinese Trademark
    That Meeting at Mar-a-Lago
    That Defense Department Trump Tower Rental
    That Red Cross Ball
    That D.C. Labor Dispute
    That Estate in Palm Beach
    Those Expansion Plans
    That Hotel in Vancouver
    That Reality-Television Show
    That Pipeline
    Those HUD Grants
    That Golf Course in Aberdeen
    That Other Billionaire New York Real-Estate Developer
    Those Indonesian Politicians
    That Emirati Businessman
    That Virginia Vineyard
    That Las Vegas Labor Dispute
    That Kuwaiti Event
    Those Certificates of Divestiture
    That Carrier Deal
    That Blind-Trust Issue
    Those Fannie and Freddie Investments
    That Phone Call With Taiwan
    That Deutsche Bank Debt
    That Secret Service Detail
    That Property in Georgia (the Country)
    That Phone Call With Erdogan
    That Hotel in Washington, D.C.
    That Argentinian Office Building
    Those Companies in Saudi Arabia
    That British Wind Farm
    Those Indian Business Partners
    That Envoy From the Philippines

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      How much money has the Second Hotel in Washington D.C. taken in, how much would it have taken in without Trump in office, and how much could the country have saved if a different, similar hotel were used?

      Perhaps you can show that a phone call with anyone, anyone at all, has resulted in Trump profiting while the country lost out.?

      These are all pertinent questions; as I'm positive you know, a conflict of interest exists ONLY when Trump has made money at the expense of the country.  Potential conflicts are not a conflict of interest; only when Trump profits at the expense of the country does a conflict exist.  Nor does government payments automatically constitute conflict; as long as value received was as good as could be gotten there is no conflict even if the money went directly to Trumps wallet.

    2. ptosis profile image77
      ptosisposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      bump

 
working